Pennsylvania v. Muniz

Justice Marshall also concurred in part and dissented in part. Marshall concurred with the majority that the sixth birthday question required a testimonial response and should have been suppressed. Marshall disagreed with the others regarding a "routine booking question" exception to Miranda. "Such exceptions undermine Miranda's fundamental principle that the doctrine should be clear so that it can be easily applied by both police and courts." The police should be required to preface all direct questioning of a suspect with Miranda warnings if they want his responses to be admissible in court. The police should have known that the seven booking questions were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating answers from a drunken suspect. Thus a Miranda warning should have been given.

Marshall felt that the "booking questions" sought testimonial responses because the answers would show Muniz's state of mind. The questions required him to either answer correctly, indicating lucidity, answer incorrectly, implying that his faculties were impaired, or say he did not know, also implying impairment. Because the police did not inform him of his Miranda rights before asking these questions, Marshall thought his answers should have been suppressed.